PITBULL ban is happening today

[marisa]

I highly doubt ONE breed ban would put down a vet business! LOL.

This is a president of a prestigious club. I doubt the low profits from treating pit bulls is influencing his opinion. But o.k.

If he is not a good enough source then exactly who IS?

He is not only a local Thornhill Vet, but also the PRESIDENT of the American college of Veterinary Behaviourists.

So I guess he is not a good enough source for you Ken. LMAO

How about Mr Roger Anderson who is the President of the Association of Municipalities of Ontario?

If those "sources" aren't good enough for you, I am afriad none will be.

Marisa

[marisa]

Qoute from the website of American College of Vet Behaviourists.

"The organization which was established to set the standards for this high level of recognition is the American College of Veterinary Behaviorists (ACVB). The ACVB was incorporated as a 501(c)3 organization in 1993, at the same time it was recognized by the American Board of Veterinary Specialists (ABVS) of the American Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) as the official certifying organization for veterinary behavioral specialists. The ABVS recognizes 23 different veterinary specialties, from internal medicine to pathology, from ophthalmology to microbiology. The ACVB is proud to be included with experts in so many diverse specialties of veterinary medicine.

The primary objectives of the ACVB are to advance veterinary behavioral science, increase the competency of those who practice in this field, and protect and serve the public by:

Establishing guidelines for postdoctoral education and experience prerequisite to certification in the specialty of behavior.

Examining and certifying veterinarians as specialists in behavior to serve the public by providing expert care for animals with behavioral problems.

Providing leadership and expertise to the veterinary profession in behavioral therapy, psychological well-being and welfare of animals, and other appropriate areas of animal behavior.

Encouraging research and other contributions to knowledge relating to etiology, diagnosis, therapy, prevention, and control of behavior problems, and promoting communication and dissemination of this knowledge. "

I guess they are a terrible source. LOL. Sorry I just don't understand what will be enough for people. To claim THIS as a bad source, or one that is against the ban because they are afriad in a drop in profits is absolutly non-founded. Like I said, if THIS source and the President of Municipalities isn't enough of a source, then no one will be for supporters of this ban which shows how little compromising that side is willing to do, while opponents have already agreed to muzzels, no public parks, and spaying for all Pits. It's sad really as that means nothing will change the minds of some people.


Marisa

[V.hb]

Marisa, you miss the point that even if everyone was told to muzzle, spay/neuter their pits most wouldn't, and until they did the attacks would continue. You keep looking at responsible pit owners, which is fine. But consider how many exhist (dont start naming people on this site, thats such an insignificant number) compared to how many irresponsible owners. Nobody has ruined the opprotunity to keep pits more than the idiot kids that can't understand the potential dangers involved with ANY dog; and just let theirs run free, or better yet, train it to attack. It's unfortunate when people see an animal as a status symbol, and not a pet.

[marisa]

No, I agree with you V.hb

I was making those points because it seems no matter who in the animal world is against the ban, no matter how many credintials they have, someone still claims they are "not a good source" and it seems that no one wants to listen to another side of this ban.

YES they are a problem.
Yes the problem is because of idiot owners.
YES they need to do something.

But my point was, many many people, including many experts are telling Ontario an all out ban is NOT the way to go. If we don't listen to vets, behaviour experts etc on this issue and the government does what it wants, then whats next? If those people aren't experts then who? Why would they not listen to the advice of people who work with animals everyday? Will they do this to reptiles even those well known herpetoligists would be speaking against it? The government is not an expert in this situation. People who do not own Pitt Bulls are not experts here. Everyday Joes are NOT experts, that includes all of us here. But many many sources voicing their concerns ARE experts in the field, but are being equally ignored by Ontario.

It's troublesome.

Marisa

[Matt_K]

Just because I know that 75% of the people reading this thread WONT go to links posted.. Here's some interesting stuff..

The claim: "I am convinced that pit bulls are ticking time bombs. I am convinced that they are inherently dangerous animals." - Michael Bryant

Response: The United States Supreme Court in Alabama ruled that there was no genetic evidence that one breed of dog was more dangerous than another, simply because of its breed. All of the experts support this view - experts that Michael Bryant refused to include in his round table discussions. Why is Michael Bryant manipulating the truth to make one group of dogs look like monsters?

The claim: "... a neighbouring pit bull knock[ed] her fence over and a 150 pound beast charged her kids." - Michael Bryant

Response: 'Pit bulls' do not exceed 100 pounds - most are in the 40-80 pounds range. In other words, Michael Bryant did not even use real 'pit bull' examples for his news conference. This proves the fears of pet owners are valid - any shorthaired, medium-to-large sized cross bred dog cannot be distinguished from 'pit bull' crosses and will be affected by this ban. This would include most boxer crosses, many labrador crosses, rhodesian ridgeback crosses, mastiff crosses ... many, many dogs.

The claim: "We also know that when you institute a pit bull ban, it does not take long to have no more pit bull problems in your jurisdiction. That was the experience in Winnipeg ..." - Michael Bryant

The response: Mr. Bryant is knowingly deceiving the people of Ontario with this statement through exclusion. Yes, by reducing the number of 'pit bulls' in Winnipeg the government significantly cut the number of 'pit bull' incidents. However, a critical point is excluded. In the four years that immediately followed the 'pit bull' ban the overall number of bites in the city of Winnipeg went up.

The real numbers are this: in Winnipeg the overall number of bites in 1990 (the year when the ban was introduced) was 214 compared to 275, 264, 256, and 301 for the years of 1991-1994. More importantly, Winnipeg's statistics show a sharp increase in bites by two specific breeds that began in 1991 - immediately after the ban was implemented.

The claim: "The bull terrier is not captured. It is not a pit bull. Boxers are ugly dogs too [laughter]. I boxed for years, so I can say that and I'm showing it right now. So no, Don Cherry's dog is safe [laughter]. Which means I am too [laughter]." - Michael Bryant

Response: Again, the Attorney General demostrates his ignorance. Don Cherry's new dog is no longer a Bull Terrier - it is an American Staffordshire Terrier, one of the proposed breeds that will be banned if Bryant's law is passed. And Don Cherry's daughter owns Staffordshire Bull Terriers, yet another breed on Michael Bryant's hit list.

If you WOULD Like to see the site that this came from, you can find it HERE

[marisa]

Yeah but those sources won't be good enough for the supporters of this ban. No one is good enough as a source I guess unless it's themselves and their own opinions.

They will also say all those facts are wrong, and that somehow someone counted the dog bites in Winnipeg wrong. And then go on to claim Byrant has been studying dog behaviour and bite statistic for the past decades. LMAO. He is apparently the only "expert" the public is willing to listen too.

It won't end. We will have to hope the "knower of everything dog" Mr Bryant will see the light since he is Ontario's new dog expert, as we all know vets apprently know nothing and no one will listen to them or the municipalities who have no idea who is paying for all this enforcement.

Marisa

[RFB]

Sorry but Dog watch is obviously an incredibly biased site. Most of the so called sources presented on both sides of the argument are absolutely worthless. So far the only scientific study I've seen that holds water is the CDC report. And as I've stated before it's recommendations are pretty even handed. Most of the rest of the so called evidence on both sides of the debate are absolute junk.

[marisa]

Of COURSE its biased! It's from the side AGAINST the ban, just like websites FOR the ban are biased in their view.

Just like HIS comments! LMAO

If the sides weren't biased they wouldn't be SIDES! We would just all agree! LMAO

This is not a problem based on facts because there really aren't enough of them, even from the CDC, it a problem based on opinions and what should be *expert* opinion. Not on a politician saying what HE thinks are facts. Experts in the field need to be allowed to review the CDC reports, public interest reports such as how many Pitt Bulls are out there, what type of owners are majority, what each side is willing to compromise on, etc. Not just some politician getting favorable emails and jumping on it. Then the experts need to be LISTENED too! Experts being vets, and people in animal behaviour sectors, municipality sectors, etc.

So far the only ones agreeing with this ban publicly are the politician, and members of the public. These are NOT experts and should not be making a choice based on feelings, government, or anything else. Countless animal experts in Ontario are writing to papers AGAINST this ban, but are being ignored. As is the president of municipalities. Ignored.

Marisa

[Invictus]

Originally posted by marisa
[B]Yeah but those sources won't be good enough for the supporters of this ban. No one is good enough as a source I guess unless it's themselves and their own opinions.

The reason why nobody is listening to the other side is simple - the people who are against the ban are blatantly ignoring the fact that sometimes it happens to the most responsible people in the world, like my old friend. Most responsible owner in the world. Kept the dog in line, obedience training, the whole works. His pit bull attacked and mauled a kid for NO REASON, and there was NOTHING he could do to stop it. By blaming the owners as being irresponsible, you being completely ignorant of the FACTS - that pit bulls and their crosses attack people and other animals unprovoked, and in most cases, it is not the owner's fault.

[RFB]

The thing is, if enough of the public get behind the ban it doesn't matter what the so called experts say. People have a right to make up their minds based on what they believe, no matter how ill informed others may feel that point of view is. Right now it seems like the majority want pits banned. So be it. That's the way our democracy works.

[Shad0w]

RFB,

yer right... if the general public wants the ban... which seems to be... so be it...

[Matt_K]

There was another attack today.. This time, it wasn't a Pit Bull.. Instead it was a Rotti.. I wouldn't have posted about it had I not found something funny about the situation...

In the recent weeks everytime there was a Pit attack, it was ALL over the news, on every channel and on the front page of the paper.. Even on the front page of Toronto's News Website www.pulse24.com.. Well, I just checked for the story on today's attack, guess what?? It's not on there.. I guess it wasn't news worthy.. I did however manage to find this about that attack on www.640Toronto.com..

A man attacked by a dog...and it wasn't a pit bull.
A 28 year old man was attacked and bitten by a rottweiler while in the Church and Wellesley area early this morning. He was rushed to hospital and is now recovering from bites to his hands. This comes just a couple of days after a protest at Queen's Park where pitbull owners rallied against the government's upcoming pitbull ban.

-Matt

[RFB]

I say ban Rotti's too.

[marisa]

Let's just ban all dogs.

I'd like cats banned as well if that's the case. Particularly males and larger sneakier breeds.

Marisa

[RFB]

Works for me.